We spoke with 5 people who work with AI about what keeps them up at night

The never ending stream of articles of the form “Person with association to $topic has opinions on $topic” are exhausting and very seldom informative.<p>Zooming out any distance at all and it seems like most mainstream journalism is indistinguishable from mad libs.

&quot;We spoke with <i>50</i> people who work with AI about what keeps them up a night, then took the craziest 5, embellished the stories (artistic license, y&#x27;know), then wrote a click-bait listicle about it.&quot;

<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20230601165554&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2023&#x2F;06&#x2F;01&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;ai-technology-future.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20230601165554&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytime...</a>

While I appreciate the NYT trying to be creative with the way they present their content, the structure of this piece pisses me off.<p>Sometimes (often), an easily navigable wall of text with quality, descriptive subtitles is best. For me, at least...

Here’s a gift link that folks can use to access the piece without wrestling with the paywall: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nyti.ms&#x2F;3MEslt4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nyti.ms&#x2F;3MEslt4</a>